20130227 FGB concall

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
HL7 TSC FGB Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 489-406-709

Date: 2013-02-27
Time: 5:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Woody Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Quorum = Chair plus 2 yes
Chair/CTO Members Members
x Ron Parker x George (Woody) Beeler x Ewout Kramer
John Quinn x Grahame Grieve
observers/guests x Austin Kreisler
Lynn Laakso, scribe
Brian Pech

Agenda

  • Roll call -
  • Agenda Review
  • Approve minutes of 20130220 FGB concall and 20130213 FGB concall
  • Action Item review:
    • Ron to speak with PIC regarding “help wanted” wiki development.
    • Grahame will have patent position for next week's review.
    • Check on Grahame's description next week of the nature of relationship with IHE and what to accomplish needs a couple paragraphs from Grahame to go to Chuck Jaffe.
    • Ron and John to remind Chuck we intend to proceed with IHE plan and then draft for him some guidance for his endorsement
    • Need to review existing open source community strategies for forking (not assigned)
  • FMG update -
  • Methodology update-
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
  • HL7/IHE/DICOM coordination (John)
  • Next steps: Define and Resource other Governance processes.
    1. Education
      • Need a work plan that is coordinated with HL7 Education Director
    2. Conformity Assessment
    3. Appeal Process / Escalation
      • What is the appeal process for resources not chosen for inclusion in the ballot?
      • What is the appeal / escalation process for Management decisions?
      • What is the appeal / escalation process for Governance decisions?Responsibilities for resources (education, conformity process, appeal process)


Minutes

Convened at 5:07 PM

  • Ron on mute due to noisy environment - Woody facilitating
  • Agenda Review - no MnM update
  • Approve minutes
  • Action Item review:
    • Ron to speak with PIC regarding “help wanted” wiki development. Defer to next week.
    • Grahame will have patent position for next week's review. No update yet. He will speak to John about it next week at HIMSS. Ron asks what the sense of urgency is on the patent statements? It will make a difference in the understanding of the open IP issues across the organization but not urgent for FHIR.
    • Check on Grahame's description next week of the nature of relationship with IHE and what to accomplish needs a couple paragraphs from Grahame to go to Chuck Jaffe. He'll have this also after HIMSS
    • Ron and John to remind Chuck we intend to proceed with IHE plan and then draft for him some guidance for his endorsement
    • Need to review existing open source community strategies for forking (not assigned)
  • Methodology update- Woody has no update.
  • Review precepts, associated governance points and risks
    • Review updated risk assessment for completeness and migrate to Risk Assessment template
      • R08 in favoring theoretical issues over practical issues discussed. Relation to recent discussions on problem lists conveyed. We may need space to put up future candidates for consideration. Right now the whole spec is in there. After the DSTU, then other areas need that kind of segregation before acceptance and management for core FHIR. Functional and operational differences are an important distinction. Ron says: We need to find a way to allow those who want to innovate in Patient Care to understand the role of our organization, products and modeling to support innovation. But if they want to change clinical practice, HL7 isn't the place to lead that charge. HL7 can help inform it... and that would be true of our approach to FHIR as well. Woody notes AMIA and EMEA should bring up these changes to practice.
    • Next Steps: Ron had considered transforming this into the TSC Risk Assessment template. This would assist in assessing degree of risk, ownership of mitigations, and identification of governance points and then establishing of precepts. What does the group think?
    • To move to the risk assessment template, someone could transcribe into the spreadsheet format but then the group has to look at criticality and likelihood. TSC started from current process and then described the risks they mitigated, where FHIR is trying to do it by identifying risks and establishing process.
    • Woody notes you could take FHIR out of the statements and make it general across the organization.
    • The FHIR risks become column C, and column B is governance points we will establish. Then we have to establish monitoring for these things. Management team implements ongoing risk assessment. ACTION ITEM: Lynn will transfer FHIR risks to the spreadsheet to review impact etc. Need a column for mitigations or link to the mitigations, where they may be related as an n:n relationships. Representation methods discussed in RoseTree, OWL, etc. Do we need to address tooling to support these for all risk assessment in organization. Databases difficult to exchange but excel is more portable. Need a diagram to represent the relationships and perhaps a view over excel might suffice. Woody notes that if risks link to mitigations and the mitigations link to governance points. Ron agrees we need to model this. ACTION ITEM: Ron takes an action item to talk to Charlie Mead about that task. Woody suggests a model with five classes including risks, governance points, mitigations, and management.
    • Woody asks about the list of candidate resources. Management group adopted that in principle and need to bring stuff forward. Need precepts developed for the Management Group to execute. FMG then brings stuff back to FGB to address, and establish a governance point for that.
    • Sandbox use discussed but more for exploring tooling than exploring resources.
  • Next steps -
    • appeal processes should be drafted. Conformity assessment now would be for quality of product. FMG working on QA processes for review of resources submitted. We can look at appeal at the next call. Risk factors should be considered in conformity assessment to ensure the spec is of quality. Ron notes we have not described uses of FHIR in any way we could test.
    • Education: what is meant by the work plan. Is FHIR team working with Education WG on tutorials, instructional videos from pre-recorded web tutorials both generally informative and instructional. How do we develop these with backup written material so the core team is not tied up doing education at the WGMs. Ewout thinks that the "what is FHIR" conceptual overview is good; Grahame started working on HIMSS, Ewout has done a Dutch version. Question if someone at HIMSS will be recording his presentation - it's not a good environment for recording. Webinar recording is an option. Woody's tried recording from GoToMeeting. Grahame notes there is already a webinar posted. When the final version of the HIMSS presentation he'll get a copy from a professional artist to include in the FHIR spec. If we do it right further education won't be as useful as implementation experience. Woody suggests we take a session in Atlanta to discuss what education is available and documented now and what we want going forward. Need to document the steps already completed and the remaining ones. ACTION ITEM for FGB to prep that conversation on education in Atlanta. Ewout suggests we write a book like Keith for CDA and Hinchley for V3.
  • Austin asks Lynn to forward the resource material on risk assessment to the group.

Adjourned 6:03 PM.

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Lynn will transfer FHIR risks to the spreadsheet to review impact etc. Need a column for mitigations or link to the mitigations, where they may be related as an n:n relationships.
  • Ron takes an action item to talk to Charlie Mead about a diagram to represent the relationships if risks link to mitigations and the mitigations link to governance points, suggests a model with no more than five classes including risks, governance points, mitigations, and management
  • Lynn to forward the resource material on risk assessment to the group.
  • Add to FGB agenda to prep that conversation on education in Atlanta.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • HIMSS next week would challenge attendance so we can cancel.
  • 20130313 FGB concall
  • look at appeal processes at the next call.


Back to FHIR_Governance_Board

© 2013 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.